Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byLauren Doherty Modified over 6 years ago

1
Model Checking Lecture 3

2
Specification Automata Syntax, given a set A of atomic observations: Sfinite set of states S 0 Sset of initial states S S transition relation : S PL(A) where the formulas of PL are ::= a | | for a A

3
Specification Omega Automata Syntax as for finite automata, in addition the following acceptance condition: Buchi:BA S

4
Language L(M) of specification omega-automaton M = (S, S 0,,, BA ) : infinite trace t 0, t 1,... L(M) iff there exists an infinite run s 0 s 1... of M such that 1. s 0 s 1... satisfies BA 2. for all i 0, t i |= (s i )

5
Let Inf(s) = { p | p = s i for infinitely many i }. The infinite run s satisfies the acceptance condition BA iff Inf(s) BA

6
(K,q) |= L M iff L(K,q) L(M) Linear semantics of specification omega automata: omega-language containment infinite traces

7
Response specification automaton : (a b) assuming (a b) = false a b b a s1s1 s2s2 s3s3 s0s0 Buchi condition { s 0, s 3 }

8
Response monitor automaton : (a b) assuming (a b) = false a b s1s1 s2s2 Buchi condition { s 2 } s0s0 true

9
Outline 1 Specifications: logic vs. automata, linear vs. branching, safety vs. liveness 2 Graph algorithms for model checking 3Symbolic algorithms for model checking 4Pushdown systems

10
Model-Checking Algorithms = Graph Algorithms

11
1Safety: -solve: finite monitors ( emptiness) -algorithm: reachability (linear) 2Liveness: -solve: Buchi monitors ( emptiness) -algorithm: strongly connected components (linear) We will talk about STL and CTL model checking later.

12
From specification automata to monitor automata: determinization (exponential) + complementation (easy) From LTL to monitor automata: complementation (easy) + tableau construction (exponential)

13
Algorithms 1Reachability 2Strongly connected components 3Tableau construction

14
Finite Emptiness Given: finite automaton (S, S 0,,, FA) Find: is there a path from a state in S 0 to a state in FA ?

15
Fix a set A of atomic observations

16
State-transition graph K Q set of states Q Q transition relation [ ]: Q 2 A observation function

17
Monitor automaton M Sfinite set of states S 0 Sset of initial states S S transition relation E Sset of final states : S PL(A) where the formulas of PL are ::= a | | for a A

18
(K,q) |= C M iff L(K,q) L(M) = We construct another monitor automaton M such that L(M) = L(K,q) L(M) S = {(q,s) Q S | [q] |= (s)} finite set of states ({q} S 0 ) S set of initial states (q,s) (q,s) transition relation iff q q and s s (Q E) Sset of final states : S PL(A)labeling function (q,s) = conjunction of atomic observations in [q] and negated atomic observations not in [q] languages over finite traces

19
Finite Emptiness Given: monitor automaton (S, S 0,,, E) Find: is there a path from a state in S 0 to a state in E ? Solution: depth-first or breadth-first search

20
dfs(s) { if (s E) then report error add s to dfsTable for each successor t of s if (t dfsTable) then dfs(t) }

21
Buchi Emptiness Given: Buchi automaton (S, S 0,,, BA) Find: is there an infinite path from a state in S 0 that visits some state in BA infinitely often ?

22
Monitor Buchi automaton M Sfinite set of states S 0 Sset of initial states S S transition relation BA Sacceptance condition : S PL(A) where the formulas of PL are ::= a | | for a A

23
(K,q) |= C M iff L(K,q) L(M) = We construct another monitor Buchi automaton M such that L(M) = L(K,q) L(M) S = {(q,s) Q S | [q] |= (s)} finite set of states ({q} S 0 ) S set of initial states (q,s) (q,s) transition relation iff q q and s s (Q BA) Sacceptance condition : S PL(A)labeling function (q,s) = conjunction of atomic observations in [q] and negated atomic observations not in [q] languages over infinite traces

24
Buchi Emptiness Given: Buchi automaton (S, S 0,,, BA) Find: is there an infinite path from a state in S 0 that visits some state in BA infinitely often ? Solution: 1. Compute SCC graph by depth-first search 2. Mark SCC C as fair iff C BA 3. Check if some fair SCC is reachable from S 0

25
Complexity n number of states m number of transitions Reachability:O(n+m) SCC:O(n+m)

26
Buchi emptiness Two algorithms for SCC computation –forward and backward DFS –forward HI-LO algorithm Storing SCCs requires lot of memory Nested DFS –checks Buchi emptiness without explicitly computing SCCs

27
dfs(s) { add s to dfsTable for each successor t of s if (t dfsTable) then dfs(t) if (s BA) then { seed := s; ndfs(s) } } ndfs(s) { add s to ndfsTable for each successor t of s if (t ndfsTable) then ndfs(t) else if (t = seed) then report error }

28
Multi-Buchi Emptiness Given: Multi-Buchi automaton (S, S 0,,, BA 1, …, BA n ) Find: is there an infinite path from a state in S 0 that infinitely often visits some state in BA i for all i such that 1 i n ? Solution: 1. Compute SCC graph by depth-first search 2. Mark SCC C as fair iff C BA i for all i such that 1 i n. 3. Check if some fair SCC is reachable from S 0

29
Tableau Construction Given:LTL formula Find: Multi-Buchi automaton M such that L(M ) = L( ) [Fischer & Ladner 1975; Manna & Wolper 1982] monitors subformulas of

30
, ::= a | a | | | | U | W ( ) = ( ) = ( ) ( U ) = ( W ) ( W )=( U ) Negation normal form

31
Fischer-Ladner Closure of a Formula Sub (a)= { a, a } Sub ( )={ } Sub ( ) Sub ( ) Sub ( )={ } Sub ( ) Sub ( U )={ U, ( U ) } Sub ( ) Sub ( ) Sub ( W )={ W, ( W ) } Sub ( ) Sub ( ) | Sub ( ) | = O(| |)

32
s Sub ( ) is consistent iff -for all atomic propositions a ( a) s iff a s -if ( ) Sub ( ) then ( ) s iff s and s -if ( ) Sub ( ) then ( ) s iff either s or s -if ( U ) Sub ( ) then ( U ) s iff either s or s and ( U ) s -if ( W ) Sub ( ) then ( W ) s iff either s or s and ( W ) s

33
Fischer-Ladner Closure of a Formula … Sub ( )={, } Sub ( )

34
s Sub ( ) is consistent iff … -if ( ) Sub ( ) then ( ) s iff either s or s -if ( ) Sub ( ) then ( ) s iff s and s

35
Tableau M = (S, S 0,,, BA 1,…,BA n ) S...set of consistent subsets of Sub ( ) s S 0 iff s s t iff for all ( ) Sub ( ), if ( ) s then t (s)... conjunction of atomic observations in s and negated atomic observations not in s There is an acceptance condition - for each ( U ) Sub ( ) given by { s | s or ( U ) s } - for each ( ) Sub ( ) given by { s | s or ( ) s }

36
Size of M is O(2 | | ). LTL model checking:PSPACE-complete

Similar presentations

© 2020 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google